AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 511

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 504 Unopposed Motion to Seal. Within 7 days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff shall file a public version of that opposition brief without the proposed redaction on page 5 of Docket No. 445 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 02/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
AEVOE CORP.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
AE TECH. CO., et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 504)

16

Pending before the Court is an omnibus motion to seal filed by Plaintiff and Defendants

17

regarding documents and briefs related to pending motions for summary judgment. Docket No. 504.

18

As an initial matter, the Court notes that a significant number of documents that were initially filed

19

under seal have now been filed publicly. Additionally, the Court notes that a significant number of

20

documents have been filed in redacted form so that the public has access to meaningful information

21

contained therein that does not warrant secrecy. Of those documents remaining for which full sealing

22

or redaction is sought, the motion (Docket No. 504) is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

23

I.

STANDARDS

24

In determining whether documents should be sealed in patent cases, the Court applies Ninth

25

Circuit law. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Ninth

26

Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. See Kamakana

27

v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

28

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal bears the burden

1

of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)

2

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents

3

attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’

4

support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Those compelling reasons must outweigh the

5

competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial

6

process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”

7

including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process).1

8

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s

9

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become

10

a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

11

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing

12

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also Apple, 727 F.3d at 1221-22

13

(discussing competitive harm to business and the definition of “trade secret” adopted by the Ninth

14

Circuit). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

15

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court

16

to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

17

A party’s burden to show compelling reasons for sealing is not met by general assertions that the

18

information is “confidential” or a “trade secret,” but rather the movant must “articulate compelling

19

reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Id. at 1178. The Ninth Circuit has expressly rejected

20

efforts to seal documents under the “compelling reasons” standard where the movant makes “conclusory

21

statements about the contents of the documents–that they are confidential and that, in general,” their

22

disclosure would be harmful to the movant. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182; see also Vaccine Ctr. LLC

23

v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis 68298, *5-6 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013) (finding insufficient

24

general assertions regarding confidential nature of documents). Such “conclusory offerings do not rise

25

to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.”

26
27
28

1

To the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful
information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing
entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137.
2

1

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. In allowing the sealing of a document, the Court must base its decision

2

on a compelling reason and must “articulate the basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis and

3

conjecture.” See, e.g., Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

4

Cir. 1995)).

5

II.

ANALYSIS

6

The Court previously found that an insufficient factual basis had been provided to seal the

7

majority of the documents at issue. Docket No. 498 at 4. The Court denied the previous motions to seal

8

so that the parties could provide a more specific showing as to what compelling reasons exist to support

9

the sealing of the relevant documents or support the requests for redaction. Id. The parties have now

10

submitted their response to the Court’s order, including the pending motion and three supporting

11

declarations.

12

A.

13

Currently before the Court are 14 exhibits and briefs that the parties wish to seal, but for which

14

redacted versions have been or will be filed. The pending motion identifies the type of information at

15

issue in each redacted document, including confidential sales and customer information. The pending

16

motion also provides declaratory evidence indicating that public release of the information would be

17

harmful and specifying the type of harm that would arise for each type of information. Based on the

18

specifically articulated showings made in the motion, supported by declaration, the Court GRANTS the

19

motion to seal as it relates to the following documents and the redacted versions filed on the public

20

docket:

21

•

22
23

•

28

Exhibit 4 (Docket No. 427-2), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
436-1;

•

26
27

Exhibit 3 (Docket No. 421 at App. 000082 to 176, the “Cox Report”), with a
redacted version to be filed within 7 days of the issuance of this Order;

24
25

Documents for Which Redaction Is Sought

Exhibit 6 (Docket No. 427-3), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
436-1;

•

Exhibit 3 (Docket No. 433-1), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
431-1;
3

1

•

2
3

431-2;
•

4
5

•

•

•

•

•

18
19

Exhibit A (Docket No. 475-1), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
471-1;

•

16
17

Exhibit 1 (Docket No. 469-1), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
485-1;

14
15

Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief (Docket No. 452), and the corresponding redacted
version at Docket No. 448;

12
13

Exhibit 9 (Docket No. 447-4), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
462-2;

10
11

Exhibit 7 (Docket No. 447-3), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
462-1;

8
9

Exhibit 12 (Docket No. 433-3), with a redacted version to be filed within 7 days of
the issuance of this Order;

6
7

Exhibit 5 (Docket No. 433-2), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.

Exhibit B (Docket No. 475-2), and the corresponding redacted version at Docket No.
471-2; and

•

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (Docket No. 474), and the corresponding redacted version at
Docket No. 470.

With respect to the request for file a redacted version of Defendants’ opposition brief at

20

Docket No. 447 (with the corresponding redacted version at Docket No. 445), the Court GRANTS the

21

request in part and DENIES it in part. The requested redactions on pages 18 and 19 relate to

22

Plaintiff’s product development cycle, including details regarding prototypes. The Court finds that

23

this information warrants secrecy and the corresponding redactions are appropriate. Plaintiff has

24

failed to show compelling reasons for the requested redaction on page 5, however. Plaintiff argues

25

that a statement on that page should be redacted because it “mischaracterizes the details of the cited

26

evidence . . . and as such is ‘a vehicle for improper purpose, such as the use of records to gratify

27

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.’” Mot.

28

at 14. Plaintiff fails to identify any legal authority (and the Court has not located any) that
4

1

dispositive motion briefing may be redacted solely on the basis that the movant believes the briefing

2

incorrectly interprets the cited evidence. In evaluating Plaintiff’s argument, the Court finds that it

3

has failed to met the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy as to the

4

statement on page 5. As such, that aspect of the motion to seal is DENIED and, within 7 days of the

5

issuance of this order, Plaintiff shall file a public version of that opposition brief without the

6

proposed redaction on page 5.

7

B.

8

Currently before the Court are 14 exhibits that the parties wish to seal in their entirety. The

9

Documents For Which Complete Sealing Is Sought

pending motion identifies the type of information at issue in each redacted document, including

10

confidential sales and customer information. The pending motion also provides declaratory evidence

11

indicating that public release of the information would be harmful and specifying the type of harm

12

that would arise for each type of information. In addition, the pending motion explains that the

13

confidential information cannot be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to

14

the public. Based on the specifically articulated showings made in the motion, supported by

15

declaration, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal as it relates to the following documents:

16

•

Exhibit 7 (ECF 427-4);

17

•

Exhibit 9 (ECF 427-5);

18

•

Exhibits 10 (ECF 427-6);

19

•

Exhibit 16 (ECF 427-7);

20

•

Exhibit 17 (ECF 427-8);

21

•

Exhibit 24 (ECF 427-10);

22

•

Exhibit 37 (ECF 427-12);

23

•

Exhibit 2 (ECF 447-1);

24

•

Exhibit 6 (ECF 447-2);

25

•

Exhibit 12 (ECF 447-6);

26

•

Exhibit 15 (ECF 447-7);

27

•

Exhibit 1 (ECF 478-1);

28

•

Exhibit 2 (ECF 478-2); and
5

1
2
3

•
III.

Exhibit 3 (ECF 478-3).

CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the motion to seal (Docket No. 504) is hereby GRANTED,

4

except that it is hereby DENIED with respect to the proposed redaction on page 5 of Docket No. 445.

5

Within 7 days of the issuance of this order, Plaintiff shall file a public version of that opposition

6

brief without the proposed redaction on page 5.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: February 24, 2014

9
10

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6